“Well written and an interesting perspective.” Clan Rossi --- “Your article is too good about Japanese business pushing nuclear power.” Consulting Group --- “Thank you for the article. It was quite useful for me to wrap up things quickly and effectively.” Taylor Johnson, Credit Union Lobby Management --- “Great information! I love your blog! You always post interesting things!” Jonathan N.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

According to a survey led by a sociologist at Catholic University
and published inThe National
Catholic Reporter,forty
percent of 1,442 American Catholic adults said "you can be a good Catholic
without believing that in Mass, the bread and wine really become the body and
blood of Christ—a core doctrine of Catholicism.” A reporter opines that
this “could reflect the decline in Mass attendance. The survey finds it’s
fallen from 44% attending at least once a week in 1987 to 31% in 2011, while
those who attend less than monthly rose from 26% to 47%. When asked why they
don’t go to Mass more often, 40% say they are simply not very religious.” What does it mean to
say that someone is or is notreligious?
Looking back at the history of religion, a neutral party might half-joke that
the adjective refers to the proclivity to spar over puerile theological
distinctions as if Creation itself hung in the balance. In this essay, I
illustrate how such a distinction bearing on the Eucharist (i.e., Holy
Communion) can be diffused of its alleged historical significance as warranting
Christian division under the taskmaster of (cognitive) uniformity as a
placeholder for unity.

Taking a swipe at a core tenet of Catholicism, Bill Keller of the New York Times writes, “Every faith has its baggage, and every faith holds beliefs that will seem bizarre to outsiders. I grew up believing that a priest could turn a bread wafer into the actual flesh of Christ.” I contend that the editor’s characterization of consecration represents a misunderstanding of the Eucharist. Such misunderstandings have been worse; in the early years of the Church, some pagans were under the impression that the Christians were meeting on Sundays to eat babies. Indeed, phrases such as “eat my body” may in fact be inherently prone to being misunderstood. In this essay, I endeavor to clear up some of the confusion and put the ritual in a more efficacious light.From: "The Eucharist as Transcendent Experience"

It is not often that the global economy’s military-industrial
complex is tied to youth unemployment and, moreover, to the idolatry of money. Yet
this is precisely the thread woven by the spiritual leader of the Roman
Catholic Church. While the pope’s comments risk a certain overreach from the
theological to the terrain of international political economy, which proffers
its own body of knowledge, it can also be said that having a transcendent
referent as one’s focus enables a person to make subtle taken-for-granted
assumptions in our economic, social, and political systems transparent. In
articulating an economic (and related political) center and giving it a
distinctly theological interpretation stemming from the Biblical passage, “For
where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,” the Roman pope provides the world with a way to do political economy from a
distinctly religious vantage-point.

Friday, June 13, 2014

In June, 2014, the “Capital
Civilization Office” in the Chinese Government began a half-year campaign to “encourage
Beijing’s 20 million residents to behave better.”[1]
Targets include “people who are noisy, smoke in public, curse at sports events,
fail to line up for buses, run red lights, drink while they drive, and drive
aggressively.” It seems to me this list could equally apply to Miami, and, at
least in terms of driving, to the entire Northeast coastline of the United
States. Perhaps urban modernity is to blame, or maybe it is simply
the old truism pertaining to the rise and fall of great empires, and thus to
cities as well. Chinese history is no stranger to this cycle in the form of a
succession of dynasties. Perhaps we would be wise to view the modern city in
such terms too.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

It may sound trite, but managers really do compromise or
expunge their company’s reputational capital altogether in order to chase down
the additional revenue obtainable from a market segment that had been
extraneous to the reputation. If the new advertisements have a Janus-like
duplicitousness air, the source is not likely even to admit to the previously
long-held principles. Indeed, the contrivance can be discerned from the way in
which artful managers use words themselves—stretching them for an intended
effect well past their respective meanings and customary usages. Unfortunately,
the made-up diction can be contagious in a society that esteems organizational
position. I have in mind Jet Blue’s switch from its egalitarian single-class
cabins to the first/coach bifurcated model. Left in the jet-wash is the company’s
long-standing principle of egalitarianism, lost in the anticipation of more
revenue from business travelers.

It is not every day that the majority leader in the U.S.
House of Representatives loses—and badly at that—to a primary challenger in an
intra-party contest. In the wake of Jim Cantor’s defeat in June, 2014,
journalists wasted no time in reducing the defeat to one issue: immigration.
Such a reductionist ex-post facto divination of voter intent—as if an
electorate were one monolithic mind writ large—is fraught with difficulties. Beyond
the sheer artifice, such an interpretation offers an easy cover for less
convenient, subterranean political shifts underway and expressed in the vote.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

The maturation of a story’s protagonist—as “growth”
eventuated through the progression of the narrative—provides a source of
dynamism that can keep a film from being static, or falling flat for lack of
character development. At the same time, a good screenwriter is careful not to
overdo it, lest a character’s internal transition occur too quickly in terms of
the story to be believable. In Dallas
Buyers Club, Ron Woodroof—played by Matthew McConaughey—“turns on a dime”
in his attitude toward gays. The flip is hardly believable. The question is
why.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

At one time, Starbucks was golden. “Everything Starbucks did in the past, more or less, had worked,” Howard. Schultz, the CEO, said in an interview in January, 2011 at the company’s headquarters. “Every store we opened was successful, every city, every country.” This led--not inevitably though seemingly so--to a phenomenal intoxicating growth in the number of stores. In 1987, Schultz bought Starbucks, which at the time had just six stores. By 1995, it had 677 shops, and by 2000, when he stepped down as CEO, it had 3,501. According to Schultz, “Growth had a life of its own — and that’s O.K., when you’re hitting the cover off the ball every time, but at some point, nothing lasts forever." The New York Times reports that after decades of "breakneck expansion . . . tight-fisted consumers abandoned" the megachain's stores during the recession. Starbucks' overreaching under Schultz was thus exposed. Ironically, it was then, in 2008, that Schultz returned to Starbucks as CEO to keep it from becoming the target of a take-over or going bankrupt. Starbucks "ultimately closed 900 locations worldwide and cut $580 million in costs." Fortuantely, by April 2009, "same-store sales, though still down from a year earlier, were finally rising. By the holidays, they had turned positive." In spite of this turnaround, lest history repeats itself, is should be asked whether Schultz had been cured of his taste for the growth drug.

The allure of the technological advances in film-making is
particularly pressing in the action genre. Three challenges come to mind—that of
how to have the film stand as a metaphor for something that is both good and
bad in “real life,” develop a relationship storyline amid the digital effects
that enable such tremendous scale of action, and restrain the visual effects
lest they manifest as a sort of visual diarrhea. Godzilla (2014) is illustrative of what can happen when a
film-maker is not up to these challenges.

Monday, June 9, 2014

On June 6, 2014, Walmart conducted its annual stockholder
meeting under “scrutiny on all fronts.”[1]
Revenue at the company’s stores in the U.S. had declined for five consecutive
quarters. Walmart was also facing ethical questions over how the company’s
executives handled bribery allegations at the Mexican division, as well as on the
low wages going to non-supervisory workers (esp. part-timers). In short, the
question facing the management was whether the company was being managed by
cutting corners, as manifest both in terms on incompetence and unethical
conduct. That the shareholder proposal to split off the chair of the board from
the CEO did not meet even a preliminary tally of votes suggests that the
company would sooner go under than that its management would be held to
account.

An unnamed investment bank holding enough of its own subprime-mortgage-based securities on its books to more than erase the firm’s entire market value should those derivatives lose only 25% of their value. What to do? In Margin Call (2011), the CEO, played by Jeremy Irons, makes the call—the firm’s traders are to unload the entire asset class the next morning. Kevin Spacey’s character has two major objections—one normative and the other operational. The marginal place of ethics on Wall Street is well illustrated by how these objections pan out in the film.